Concentric Screening ?
- Thread starter CKL
- Start date
gordo
Well-known member
Re: Concentric Screening ?
Both press room and prepress will need to be concerned.
Concentric screening is really an AM screen ruling multiplier and will have similar behaviour to any very fine AM or FM screen and carry many of the same benefits.
Patterning within each color channel can be an issue because it destroys visible uniformity. This patterning is partly influenced by imaging, plates and presswork and requires users to experiment till they find something suitable. Essentially, the screening math is hampered by geometric constraints (angle, resolution, lpi, dot shape + ring width).
Visible structure is kept to a minimum by specifying very narrow rings, BUT this pushes the frequency so high that process stability and imaging are compromised. Even when screens are free from visible artifacts, they are often so fine that it is difficult to support their use on plate let alone find a way to implement them in the press room. The problem is that some concentric screen settings drive rulings way over what plate imaging can support - on the order of 1-2 pixel widths for the rings, which is understandably problematic. For example, a 200 lpi screen with 2 pixel ringwidths = 600 lpi which is finer than, for example, Kodak Staccato 10.
Coarser ring widths are easier to implement but at that point it is probably more effective to use an AM screen of equivalent lpi. Since it is still an AM screen there is still the opportunity for screening and subject moiré - although the finer the screen the less likely that will be a problem.
From a print buyer point of view there will likely be no visible difference between a 2-300 lpi conventional AM screen and concentric screening - even under a loupe.
best gordo
Both press room and prepress will need to be concerned.
Concentric screening is really an AM screen ruling multiplier and will have similar behaviour to any very fine AM or FM screen and carry many of the same benefits.
Patterning within each color channel can be an issue because it destroys visible uniformity. This patterning is partly influenced by imaging, plates and presswork and requires users to experiment till they find something suitable. Essentially, the screening math is hampered by geometric constraints (angle, resolution, lpi, dot shape + ring width).
Visible structure is kept to a minimum by specifying very narrow rings, BUT this pushes the frequency so high that process stability and imaging are compromised. Even when screens are free from visible artifacts, they are often so fine that it is difficult to support their use on plate let alone find a way to implement them in the press room. The problem is that some concentric screen settings drive rulings way over what plate imaging can support - on the order of 1-2 pixel widths for the rings, which is understandably problematic. For example, a 200 lpi screen with 2 pixel ringwidths = 600 lpi which is finer than, for example, Kodak Staccato 10.
Coarser ring widths are easier to implement but at that point it is probably more effective to use an AM screen of equivalent lpi. Since it is still an AM screen there is still the opportunity for screening and subject moiré - although the finer the screen the less likely that will be a problem.
From a print buyer point of view there will likely be no visible difference between a 2-300 lpi conventional AM screen and concentric screening - even under a loupe.
best gordo
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Concentric Screening ?
>Patterning within each color channel can be an issue because it destroys visible uniformity.
Hi Gordon,
I had not heard of this technology until I saw the first post in this thread. So I did a Google search and found some interesting links. This one below, page 6, seems to contradict your point directly. I realize it is by the vendor, but the disagreement seems to be one of fact.
http://print05.gasc.org/PDF/mse_individual.pdf
Al
Edited by: Al Ferrari on Feb 25, 2008 2:22 PM
>Patterning within each color channel can be an issue because it destroys visible uniformity.
Hi Gordon,
I had not heard of this technology until I saw the first post in this thread. So I did a Google search and found some interesting links. This one below, page 6, seems to contradict your point directly. I realize it is by the vendor, but the disagreement seems to be one of fact.
http://print05.gasc.org/PDF/mse_individual.pdf
Al
Edited by: Al Ferrari on Feb 25, 2008 2:22 PM
gordo
Well-known member
Re: Concentric Screening ?
I don't think there's a contradiction. We are speaking about two different issues. They are referring to the "graininess" sometimes associated with FM/stochastic screens (a separate discussion). I was referring to "patterning". Here's what the screen looks like:
I'll try to explain. In a conventional AM screen, the vertical and horizontal distance between successive dot centers is constant and is a function of the screen frequency. Unfortunately, the combination of screen frequency and angle results in halftone dot cells that, other than at 45 and 90 degrees, do not intersect the recorder grid in any consistent way. As a result, the halftone cells in a single color channel are not identically shaped and do not contain the same number of pixels. If the difference in dot shapes in a single color channel repeats itself , i.e. has a frequency, the result is a type of patterning within one screen called single channel moir�. (Unless the screening developer has taken steps to avoid it)
Dividing the AM dot into thin concentric rings adds complexity to the design of the screen while still being limited to the geometry of the AM screen. You can see this problem clearly in the illustration. This can result in the "patterning" that I referred to in my original post.
best, gordo
I don't think there's a contradiction. We are speaking about two different issues. They are referring to the "graininess" sometimes associated with FM/stochastic screens (a separate discussion). I was referring to "patterning". Here's what the screen looks like:
I'll try to explain. In a conventional AM screen, the vertical and horizontal distance between successive dot centers is constant and is a function of the screen frequency. Unfortunately, the combination of screen frequency and angle results in halftone dot cells that, other than at 45 and 90 degrees, do not intersect the recorder grid in any consistent way. As a result, the halftone cells in a single color channel are not identically shaped and do not contain the same number of pixels. If the difference in dot shapes in a single color channel repeats itself , i.e. has a frequency, the result is a type of patterning within one screen called single channel moir�. (Unless the screening developer has taken steps to avoid it)
Dividing the AM dot into thin concentric rings adds complexity to the design of the screen while still being limited to the geometry of the AM screen. You can see this problem clearly in the illustration. This can result in the "patterning" that I referred to in my original post.
best, gordo
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Concentric Screening ?
Thanks for the illustrated response. I accept your explanation.
Learned several things today.
Al
Thanks for the illustrated response. I accept your explanation.
Learned several things today.
Al
Green Printer
Registered Users
Re: Concentric Screening ?
The idea for this type of screening came from hollow dot printing. With improper chemistry solid dots will tend to print hollow in the middle.
To compensate for this ink water issue the screening was developed.
Pat Berger
Mercer Color
The idea for this type of screening came from hollow dot printing. With improper chemistry solid dots will tend to print hollow in the middle.
To compensate for this ink water issue the screening was developed.
Pat Berger
Mercer Color
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Concentric Screening ?
Hi Pat,
Can you please say more about this "hollow dot printing", or post a link where we could follow up on it? I tried Googling for it, but didn't get too far.
Thanks,
Al
Hi Pat,
Can you please say more about this "hollow dot printing", or post a link where we could follow up on it? I tried Googling for it, but didn't get too far.
Thanks,
Al
gordo
Well-known member
Re: Concentric Screening ?
Re: Pat wrote:
"The idea for this type of screening came from hollow dot printing. With improper chemistry solid dots will tend to print hollow in the middle. To compensate for this ink water issue the screening was developed."
Pat, actually I believe this screening was born in the land of flexo, where Artworks was looking to texture the surfaces of the dots without using FM screening techniques which patents prevent them (and others) from doing. So, it's not to solve an ink/water issue at all.
best, gordo
Re: Pat wrote:
"The idea for this type of screening came from hollow dot printing. With improper chemistry solid dots will tend to print hollow in the middle. To compensate for this ink water issue the screening was developed."
Pat, actually I believe this screening was born in the land of flexo, where Artworks was looking to texture the surfaces of the dots without using FM screening techniques which patents prevent them (and others) from doing. So, it's not to solve an ink/water issue at all.
best, gordo
GinSu
Well-known member
Re: Concentric Screening ?
Yes, both prepress and pressroom need to be aware of what's going on.
From my testing, the key component to the ability to do concentric screening is your plate. While EAWS claims maintaining a 2x2 grid to plate may work, maintaining a 1x1 grid to plate (without patterning) works much better. I'm lucky in that our Javelin with Fuji LH-PJ plates were properly configured from the start and holding the 1x1 grid to plate happened by default. EAWS won't say it specifically but Fuji thermal plates are good, Kodak and Agfa not so much.
The pressman will also need a heads up. The thinner the ring widths, the less ability they'll have to move the color on press.
Are you using Paragon Screening? Concentric Screening is a unique dot shape for the Paragon Screens. Paragon Screens give the anti-moire with better rossettes. Pushing it to the Concentric dot will give you some ink savings and better consistency on press (ring width dependent) as well as slightly brighter/cleaner color.
Yes, both prepress and pressroom need to be aware of what's going on.
From my testing, the key component to the ability to do concentric screening is your plate. While EAWS claims maintaining a 2x2 grid to plate may work, maintaining a 1x1 grid to plate (without patterning) works much better. I'm lucky in that our Javelin with Fuji LH-PJ plates were properly configured from the start and holding the 1x1 grid to plate happened by default. EAWS won't say it specifically but Fuji thermal plates are good, Kodak and Agfa not so much.
The pressman will also need a heads up. The thinner the ring widths, the less ability they'll have to move the color on press.
Are you using Paragon Screening? Concentric Screening is a unique dot shape for the Paragon Screens. Paragon Screens give the anti-moire with better rossettes. Pushing it to the Concentric dot will give you some ink savings and better consistency on press (ring width dependent) as well as slightly brighter/cleaner color.
J_Lindgren
Member
Re: Concentric Screening ?
GinSu gave you a pretty thorough explanation.
I'll just add some notes. Some of the pro's are:
- Reduced ink layer thickness - giving you far more chromaticity on your halftones (in comparison, regular AM screened will look as if there were some 10% dirtying colours with the main colour.)
- More stable in print due to inherent limit of ink layer thickness variation. Faster set-up time.
- High details as in FM, while avoiding the graininess of FM in flat tints.
Some of the con's:
- Demanding on plates and exposure. See GinSu's notes on Fuji thermal plates. When plates are in good shape, the printing should be no problem in modern press.
(Uh... Didn't come up with anything else...)
Gordon is wrong in what he says about the origin of Concentric Screening. Former AWS did not develop this for flexo. This is definitely for Offset. Maybe he is confusing this with PlateCell Patterning for adding pattern to solid areas to help ink transfer in flexo. Totally different thing.
Edited by: Jukka Lindgren on Mar 6, 2008 3:56 PM
GinSu gave you a pretty thorough explanation.
I'll just add some notes. Some of the pro's are:
- Reduced ink layer thickness - giving you far more chromaticity on your halftones (in comparison, regular AM screened will look as if there were some 10% dirtying colours with the main colour.)
- More stable in print due to inherent limit of ink layer thickness variation. Faster set-up time.
- High details as in FM, while avoiding the graininess of FM in flat tints.
Some of the con's:
- Demanding on plates and exposure. See GinSu's notes on Fuji thermal plates. When plates are in good shape, the printing should be no problem in modern press.
(Uh... Didn't come up with anything else...)
Gordon is wrong in what he says about the origin of Concentric Screening. Former AWS did not develop this for flexo. This is definitely for Offset. Maybe he is confusing this with PlateCell Patterning for adding pattern to solid areas to help ink transfer in flexo. Totally different thing.
Edited by: Jukka Lindgren on Mar 6, 2008 3:56 PM
gordo
Well-known member
Re: Concentric Screening ?
Jukka,
I may possibly be wrong about the origin of concentric screening - however it is the history as I understand it. Perhaps EAWS can clarify.
You wrote:
"Reduced ink layer thickness - giving you far more chromaticity on your halftones (in comparison, regular AM screened will look as if there were some 10% dirtying colours with the main colour.)"
I have to disagree, reduced ink layer/film thickness is not the cause of increased chroma. Chroma in halftones derives primarily from the ratio of light being filtered by ink vs light reflected off the paper that hasn't been filtered by the ink. Light that is unfiltered by the ink effectively contaminates the color you see. There are other contributors to increased chroma, one of which is the more even film of ink across the surface of small dots, or in the case of concentric, ring width.
And "High details as in FM, while avoiding the graininess of FM in flat tints."
I agree that some FM screens are grainy in flat tints particularly first order FM screens - however it is not correct to say that it is true of all FM screen implementations.
best, gordo
Jukka,
I may possibly be wrong about the origin of concentric screening - however it is the history as I understand it. Perhaps EAWS can clarify.
You wrote:
"Reduced ink layer thickness - giving you far more chromaticity on your halftones (in comparison, regular AM screened will look as if there were some 10% dirtying colours with the main colour.)"
I have to disagree, reduced ink layer/film thickness is not the cause of increased chroma. Chroma in halftones derives primarily from the ratio of light being filtered by ink vs light reflected off the paper that hasn't been filtered by the ink. Light that is unfiltered by the ink effectively contaminates the color you see. There are other contributors to increased chroma, one of which is the more even film of ink across the surface of small dots, or in the case of concentric, ring width.
And "High details as in FM, while avoiding the graininess of FM in flat tints."
I agree that some FM screens are grainy in flat tints particularly first order FM screens - however it is not correct to say that it is true of all FM screen implementations.
best, gordo
GinSu
Well-known member
Re: Concentric Screening ?
Gordo, you wrote:
>" I have to disagree, reduced ink layer/film thickness is not the cause of increased chroma...
>There are other contributors to increased chroma, one of which is the more even film of ink across the surface of small dots, or in the case of concentric, ring width."
After the first few reads it appeared to me that you were contradicting yourself. However, I've summized that this is what you are saying:
You contend that the primary contributor to the increased chroma from concentric dots is the increased amount of paper that is unfiltered by ink, the spaces between the rings of the individual dots. The reduced ink film thickness of the concentric rings also results in more even ink film, which can also contribute to increased chroma, and in your opinion is a secondary consideration.
Right? I'm not wanting to argue, just trying to understand your statement.
Gordo, you wrote:
>" I have to disagree, reduced ink layer/film thickness is not the cause of increased chroma...
>There are other contributors to increased chroma, one of which is the more even film of ink across the surface of small dots, or in the case of concentric, ring width."
After the first few reads it appeared to me that you were contradicting yourself. However, I've summized that this is what you are saying:
You contend that the primary contributor to the increased chroma from concentric dots is the increased amount of paper that is unfiltered by ink, the spaces between the rings of the individual dots. The reduced ink film thickness of the concentric rings also results in more even ink film, which can also contribute to increased chroma, and in your opinion is a secondary consideration.
Right? I'm not wanting to argue, just trying to understand your statement.
gordo
Well-known member
Re: Concentric Screening ?
No worries.
RE: "You contend that the primary contributor to the increased chroma from concentric dots is the increased amount of paper that is unfiltered by ink, the spaces between the rings of the individual dots. "
No. You see color because light is filtered by the ink. Assuming that you are operating at an appropriate SID/ink film thickness breaking the dot into rings and increasing the lpi effectively increases the ratio of inked area to non inked area. Hence more light is filtered by ink and you get an increase in chroma. The same thing happens with an FM screen (lots of little dots per area) and high lpi AM screens (typically over 300 lpi) - remember that originally wrote that Concentric screening is really an AM screen ruling multiplier and will have similar behaviour to any very fine AM or FM screen and carry many of the same benefits.
Also, when dots become smaller - whether because they're rings, squiggles, FM or high frequency AM screens - the ink film density across the surface of the dot is more homogenous (even). A TAGA paper written I think in the late 90s studied this contributor to increased gamut.
Here's a 3D rendering of ink film thickness - on the left 175 lpi. On the right an FM screen. (Sorry I don't have a like image for Concentric). Both areas would measure the same tone value.
!http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/10692InkThickness.jpg!
Their findings showed that the variations in ink film thickness across the surface of the AM dot created areas where light is not filtered as efficiently and hence contributed to lowering the gamut of the gamut.
So, while ink film thickness will impact chroma, the primary cause of increased gamut with any halftone screen is the size of the individual halftone dot and its frequency and the area of ink coverage relative to non inked area. Another way to put it is that halftone screens do not increase gamut - it's the light hitting paper between dots reduces gamut.
That's why you will see a similar midtone gamut increase with any high lpi AM screen or FM screen that you see with Concentric screens.
best gordo
No worries.
RE: "You contend that the primary contributor to the increased chroma from concentric dots is the increased amount of paper that is unfiltered by ink, the spaces between the rings of the individual dots. "
No. You see color because light is filtered by the ink. Assuming that you are operating at an appropriate SID/ink film thickness breaking the dot into rings and increasing the lpi effectively increases the ratio of inked area to non inked area. Hence more light is filtered by ink and you get an increase in chroma. The same thing happens with an FM screen (lots of little dots per area) and high lpi AM screens (typically over 300 lpi) - remember that originally wrote that Concentric screening is really an AM screen ruling multiplier and will have similar behaviour to any very fine AM or FM screen and carry many of the same benefits.
Also, when dots become smaller - whether because they're rings, squiggles, FM or high frequency AM screens - the ink film density across the surface of the dot is more homogenous (even). A TAGA paper written I think in the late 90s studied this contributor to increased gamut.
Here's a 3D rendering of ink film thickness - on the left 175 lpi. On the right an FM screen. (Sorry I don't have a like image for Concentric). Both areas would measure the same tone value.
!http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/10692InkThickness.jpg!
Their findings showed that the variations in ink film thickness across the surface of the AM dot created areas where light is not filtered as efficiently and hence contributed to lowering the gamut of the gamut.
So, while ink film thickness will impact chroma, the primary cause of increased gamut with any halftone screen is the size of the individual halftone dot and its frequency and the area of ink coverage relative to non inked area. Another way to put it is that halftone screens do not increase gamut - it's the light hitting paper between dots reduces gamut.
That's why you will see a similar midtone gamut increase with any high lpi AM screen or FM screen that you see with Concentric screens.
best gordo
D
Deleted member 16349
Guest
Re: Concentric Screening ?
With small dots and thinner ink film, one also has the phenomena of having more light go into the paper and diffuse under the dot and come up through the dot. This light is then filtered by the ink on one pass. Thinner ink films in general can but not always shift the hue. It depends on the shape of the spectral curve. A single pass through the ink film would act like it was filtered by a very thin ink film.
So with FM dots, one has both the affect from a thinner ink film in the dot in general and a greater percentage of light coming up through the dot via diffusion, because the distance from the edges of the dot is so short. This can result in hue shifts and light than expected print.
There is also a more subtle affect. Possibly too low to be significant but it is still there. It has to do with the difference between reflected light and transmitted light through an ink film.
Density is just a calculation from reflectance. We all know that density of a solid ink increases with ink film thickness but does not go up to infinity. Density of a solid goes up and then reaches a maximum value. This is basically because all the light that shines on the solid does not reach the paper. Some of it is reflected by the pigments in the ink film and at the surface.
Transmitted light is a little different. Again, density is a calculation of transmitted light. If you shine light through an ink film and measure it on the other side, the density increases as the ink film increases. The density does not level out but theoretically goes to infinity as the ink film does.
The point here is that reflected light on and ink film and transmitted light are filtered a little differently.
We can all understand the light path of reflected light relative to the ink film. The light goes into the ink film. Most of it gets to the paper and is reflected back out. Some is reflected back out from the pigments.
But with very small dots and edges of solids there is also transmitted light. Some light goes into the ink and into the paper and is diffused about and comes out in the non printed regions just outside the dot. Also light goes directily into the paper, is diffused and is filtered as it comes up through the ink of the dot.
So there are lots of interesting and complicated phenomena happening with dots that affect colour.
That is why I tend to say that CMYK inks are not colours but are filters. There is no CMYK colour space. Dealing with CMYK as a colour space is an oversimplification that leads to less predictable results.
With small dots and thinner ink film, one also has the phenomena of having more light go into the paper and diffuse under the dot and come up through the dot. This light is then filtered by the ink on one pass. Thinner ink films in general can but not always shift the hue. It depends on the shape of the spectral curve. A single pass through the ink film would act like it was filtered by a very thin ink film.
So with FM dots, one has both the affect from a thinner ink film in the dot in general and a greater percentage of light coming up through the dot via diffusion, because the distance from the edges of the dot is so short. This can result in hue shifts and light than expected print.
There is also a more subtle affect. Possibly too low to be significant but it is still there. It has to do with the difference between reflected light and transmitted light through an ink film.
Density is just a calculation from reflectance. We all know that density of a solid ink increases with ink film thickness but does not go up to infinity. Density of a solid goes up and then reaches a maximum value. This is basically because all the light that shines on the solid does not reach the paper. Some of it is reflected by the pigments in the ink film and at the surface.
Transmitted light is a little different. Again, density is a calculation of transmitted light. If you shine light through an ink film and measure it on the other side, the density increases as the ink film increases. The density does not level out but theoretically goes to infinity as the ink film does.
The point here is that reflected light on and ink film and transmitted light are filtered a little differently.
We can all understand the light path of reflected light relative to the ink film. The light goes into the ink film. Most of it gets to the paper and is reflected back out. Some is reflected back out from the pigments.
But with very small dots and edges of solids there is also transmitted light. Some light goes into the ink and into the paper and is diffused about and comes out in the non printed regions just outside the dot. Also light goes directily into the paper, is diffused and is filtered as it comes up through the ink of the dot.
So there are lots of interesting and complicated phenomena happening with dots that affect colour.
That is why I tend to say that CMYK inks are not colours but are filters. There is no CMYK colour space. Dealing with CMYK as a colour space is an oversimplification that leads to less predictable results.
D
Deleted member 16349
Guest
Re: Concentric Screening ?
Yes this is a really big problem and the printing industry has no idea of the level of ignorance and stupidity that exists in its own scientific community. Just because there are high tech technologies used in the industry, there is an assumption that suppliers know what they are doing.
This is why I look at the physics of problems. If one can understand what is physically happening then it gives one a very good idea of what technologies will or will not work. It is not a matter of opinion but a matter of analysis. Something that can be tested.
The offset printing process is complicated but so are a lot of processes at some level. That does not mean that it is not controllable. The offset printing process has quite a few fundamental problems that prevent it from being much more consistent and predictable. These problem are not that difficult to understand and not that expensive to correct but there has to be an interest to correct them.
Why is it that these problem can not be discussed and corrected? It is because of the failure to develop true knowledge of how things work. I am an engineer and I am embarrassed by the incompetence of the engineers in this industry to understand process problems. Maybe it is a good industry to hide in if you know you have few innovative and analytical skills.
Education in the industry has failed. Technology is taught but not science. Doing tests is not science. Thinking is required for science. When the general printing community is not educated, how can they evaluate any new approach? Well, they can't. They are trained but not educated well enough to think some of the simplest things through.
As I said, many of the important problem are not difficult. The fact that they have not been sorted out decades ago, just goes to confirm the incompetence of the scientific and technical community. TAGA has failed. GATF has failed. RIT has failed. The press manufactures and the large printing companies have failed to be interested in what is really true about the process.
People mix up the concepts of science and technology. They are not the same at all. Technology does things and it is badly needed. Science tells you how the process works and why things should be done in a particular way. There are a lot of very technically knowledgeable people who can lead others to get the most out of existing technology but very very few scientifically knowledgeable people in the industry who can lead others to know how to make innovative and fundamental changes to the process.
Technologies come and go but the laws of Nature never change. That is why it is so important to understand and discuss printing issues at that level.
And what are we aiming at? We are aiming at understanding how to have predictable and consistent printed colour in production. A very practical goal. But to get to that goal, one needs to know what the constraints are and what needs to be done to eliminate them. Very simple. Simple but no one wants to address those issues. Instead they want to deal with technologies that are really band aid remedies for process problems that are not understood.
As you know, I have for a very long time been pushing the issue of positive ink feed. This is not only because of my patents but because by demonstrating that positive ink feed is the primary factor in density control that leads to consistency and predictability, people can then really start to understand the problem. Until that happens everything stays in a confusing mess.
Having a positive ink feed demonstrates that the offset process can be mathematically definable. This means that it can be designed to have predictable performance. It would also demonstrate that quite a lot of technical comments, papers and supplier hype is really full of crap. The truth can protect one from that.
Unfortunately in the industry, there is no support for getting to the truth and maybe no ability to discuss it. Printing is still a trade. It is a fantastically interesting process which I would have really enjoyed to improve but there is now little chance of that happening. But you never know.
Yes this is a really big problem and the printing industry has no idea of the level of ignorance and stupidity that exists in its own scientific community. Just because there are high tech technologies used in the industry, there is an assumption that suppliers know what they are doing.
This is why I look at the physics of problems. If one can understand what is physically happening then it gives one a very good idea of what technologies will or will not work. It is not a matter of opinion but a matter of analysis. Something that can be tested.
The offset printing process is complicated but so are a lot of processes at some level. That does not mean that it is not controllable. The offset printing process has quite a few fundamental problems that prevent it from being much more consistent and predictable. These problem are not that difficult to understand and not that expensive to correct but there has to be an interest to correct them.
Why is it that these problem can not be discussed and corrected? It is because of the failure to develop true knowledge of how things work. I am an engineer and I am embarrassed by the incompetence of the engineers in this industry to understand process problems. Maybe it is a good industry to hide in if you know you have few innovative and analytical skills.
Education in the industry has failed. Technology is taught but not science. Doing tests is not science. Thinking is required for science. When the general printing community is not educated, how can they evaluate any new approach? Well, they can't. They are trained but not educated well enough to think some of the simplest things through.
As I said, many of the important problem are not difficult. The fact that they have not been sorted out decades ago, just goes to confirm the incompetence of the scientific and technical community. TAGA has failed. GATF has failed. RIT has failed. The press manufactures and the large printing companies have failed to be interested in what is really true about the process.
People mix up the concepts of science and technology. They are not the same at all. Technology does things and it is badly needed. Science tells you how the process works and why things should be done in a particular way. There are a lot of very technically knowledgeable people who can lead others to get the most out of existing technology but very very few scientifically knowledgeable people in the industry who can lead others to know how to make innovative and fundamental changes to the process.
Technologies come and go but the laws of Nature never change. That is why it is so important to understand and discuss printing issues at that level.
And what are we aiming at? We are aiming at understanding how to have predictable and consistent printed colour in production. A very practical goal. But to get to that goal, one needs to know what the constraints are and what needs to be done to eliminate them. Very simple. Simple but no one wants to address those issues. Instead they want to deal with technologies that are really band aid remedies for process problems that are not understood.
As you know, I have for a very long time been pushing the issue of positive ink feed. This is not only because of my patents but because by demonstrating that positive ink feed is the primary factor in density control that leads to consistency and predictability, people can then really start to understand the problem. Until that happens everything stays in a confusing mess.
Having a positive ink feed demonstrates that the offset process can be mathematically definable. This means that it can be designed to have predictable performance. It would also demonstrate that quite a lot of technical comments, papers and supplier hype is really full of crap. The truth can protect one from that.
Unfortunately in the industry, there is no support for getting to the truth and maybe no ability to discuss it. Printing is still a trade. It is a fantastically interesting process which I would have really enjoyed to improve but there is now little chance of that happening. But you never know.
Re: Concentric Screening ?
Erik,
You talk about how education in the industry has failed to teach the science of printing. Have you written a book about the science of printing? If so, what is the name? If you haven't, then you should so you can help educate the rest of us.
If we are at an athletic game and scream to the players what they should be doing. This ends up with an unhappy spectator because the players didn't listen to them. If on the other hand you become the coach and instruct the players, the players (hopefully) listen to you.
You seem like a really knowledgeable person and if you have written a book. I would really like to read it and understand were you are coming from. I am currently on the advisory committee for a local college and this is something I will bring up at the next meeting we have. I would like to bring some more information to the table though.
Thanks,
Brian Cupp
Erik,
You talk about how education in the industry has failed to teach the science of printing. Have you written a book about the science of printing? If so, what is the name? If you haven't, then you should so you can help educate the rest of us.
If we are at an athletic game and scream to the players what they should be doing. This ends up with an unhappy spectator because the players didn't listen to them. If on the other hand you become the coach and instruct the players, the players (hopefully) listen to you.
You seem like a really knowledgeable person and if you have written a book. I would really like to read it and understand were you are coming from. I am currently on the advisory committee for a local college and this is something I will bring up at the next meeting we have. I would like to bring some more information to the table though.
Thanks,
Brian Cupp
D
Deleted member 16349
Guest
Re: Concentric Screening ?
Brian, a book is pretty expensive thing to do especially when there is no market for it.
I have written and presented a TAGA paper in 1997 which goes over some critical issues that need to be understood. Most of it is still very valid. You could start there by reading it.
I have also written many comments etc. on the Internet, since 1997 that one can find by googling my name.
I have also prepared a course directed at engineers on the design issues of offset printing presses related to the density control problem. I have presented it a few times in Europe and in the US. Not a big demand for it but it does cover the science for what needs to be understood to be able to design a press so that it could start up and get to a target density without an operator making adjustments to the inking system.
I have a US and very soon a Canadian patent on a simple and cheap technology that eliminates ink water balancing in conventional offset presses.
So I am not just a critic.
So after over ten years of finding out there is no demand for such knowledge, I gave up and closed my company and got a process engineering job, which is now my priority.
So I am not so interested in educating anyone anymore. I am interested in licensing or selling my technology to a press manufacturer. If that happens then they can also have an opportunity to develop a lot more capabilities based on my knowledge, that can make press operation "hands free" and get to colour very very fast with consistency and predictability.
So far, that is of absolute no interest to the major press manufacturers. They don't believe it is possible and they are too lazy to investigate. Instead they make side ways moves by developing Karat, Genius, Cortina and Anicolor concepts which will not be the future of press design. These concepts will turn out to be again, only good ideas that can not match up to their dream. But if they had known more about the science involved, they would have known from the very start that those dream concepts were not reality.
There is a need to change the culture and that is a much bigger problem than I can deal with. If my technology and knowledge is taken up by a press manufacturer and that develops into a strategic advantage for them that would be difficult to challenge, that would make my day. It would also be a good lesson for their competitors. That's the kind of 'reality check' education I would like to see.
Brian, a book is pretty expensive thing to do especially when there is no market for it.
I have written and presented a TAGA paper in 1997 which goes over some critical issues that need to be understood. Most of it is still very valid. You could start there by reading it.
I have also written many comments etc. on the Internet, since 1997 that one can find by googling my name.
I have also prepared a course directed at engineers on the design issues of offset printing presses related to the density control problem. I have presented it a few times in Europe and in the US. Not a big demand for it but it does cover the science for what needs to be understood to be able to design a press so that it could start up and get to a target density without an operator making adjustments to the inking system.
I have a US and very soon a Canadian patent on a simple and cheap technology that eliminates ink water balancing in conventional offset presses.
So I am not just a critic.
So after over ten years of finding out there is no demand for such knowledge, I gave up and closed my company and got a process engineering job, which is now my priority.
So I am not so interested in educating anyone anymore. I am interested in licensing or selling my technology to a press manufacturer. If that happens then they can also have an opportunity to develop a lot more capabilities based on my knowledge, that can make press operation "hands free" and get to colour very very fast with consistency and predictability.
So far, that is of absolute no interest to the major press manufacturers. They don't believe it is possible and they are too lazy to investigate. Instead they make side ways moves by developing Karat, Genius, Cortina and Anicolor concepts which will not be the future of press design. These concepts will turn out to be again, only good ideas that can not match up to their dream. But if they had known more about the science involved, they would have known from the very start that those dream concepts were not reality.
There is a need to change the culture and that is a much bigger problem than I can deal with. If my technology and knowledge is taken up by a press manufacturer and that develops into a strategic advantage for them that would be difficult to challenge, that would make my day. It would also be a good lesson for their competitors. That's the kind of 'reality check' education I would like to see.
Similar threads
PressWise
|
A 30-day Fix for Managed Chaos
As any print professional knows, printing can be managed chaos. Software that solves multiple problems and provides measurable and monetizable value has a direct impact on the bottom-line. “We reduced order entry costs by about 40%.” Significant savings in a shop that turns about 500 jobs a month. Learn how……. |
